Method, 29 September 2026: We simulated the sequence against the authored inputs, checked that all local links resolve, traced the rules by hand, checked arithmetic, rendered the three A4 PDFs and visually inspected all pages. This is not a classroom pilot. No student, teacher, parent, younger reader or funder was enrolled or interviewed.
Teacher desk route
I can start with the README, see a 35-minute allocation for each of ten days and set out printed or text-only aids. Every ordinary day has a model, an investigation, one of three routes, a quick check and a note. On Days 15/20, I keep new prompts closed and record first responses, then use specific next moves instead of a total-only mark. The source cards and answer key are sufficient to run the worked examples. Watchpoint: local timetable, device availability, student privacy/access arrangements and national/state mapping still need a teacher's decision. The ten sessions supplement a Year 7 programme; they cannot replace all Science, HASS or Arts requirements.
Learner desk route
I can choose a table, explanation/script or critique/test route without switching the actual learning goal. I can use complete text, a reader or tactile labelled cards, and I need not draw a convincing leaf, record audio, buy materials or show family information. A mistaken output is treated as a trace to inspect. The fresh checks ask me to show steps rather than guess a “right” presentation style. Watchpoint: the teacher should offer a genuine independent response window and check how the vocabulary (“entire”, “candidate”, “percentage points”, “opportunity cost”) lands with their learners.
Potential funder desk route
I can inspect the source hash, exact code-row wording, original licensing, answer key, PDF/text parity and a reproducible local verifier. The design has a plausible pathway to reducing planning work because a teacher has ready source cards, choices, checks and next moves. Evidence boundary: no measured teacher time saving, learning gain, uptake, accessibility outcome or virality follows from this pack. A serious evaluation would need consent, local teacher review, defined measures, comparison/baseline and reporting of failures as well as successes.
Critique and repairs made here
- A first edge marker drew T4 as wholly jagged despite its mixed written descriptor. The generator now draws half smooth and half jagged, with full words still authoritative.
- The instruction sheet initially risked conflating a branch result with a validated match. The learner and staff pages now require candidate → all three traits → accepted/unmatched.
- Budget tasks can accidentally present access as optional. Both briefs now state that the accessible core is already provided and only extra outreach formats compete for a discretionary slot.
- Percentage tasks can invite an exaggerated “100% accurate” claim. Every model log names its invented denominator and test criterion; the staff key gives a narrower sentence.
Next real-world review: a Year 7 teacher and accessibility reviewer should use the package locally, note actual timing and confusion points, and review state/territory requirements. A younger reader can assess clarity only with appropriate consent and supervision. Revisions should preserve check freshness and source rights.